SB v Roads and Traffic Authority - [2010] NSWADT 255

CITATION: SB v Roads and Traffic Authority [2010] NSWADT 255

DIVISION: General Division

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
SB
RESPONDENT
Roads and Traffic Authority

FILE NUMBER: 093304

HEARING DATES: 16 June 2010

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 30 June 2010

DATE OF DECISION:
27 October 2010

BEFORE: Montgomery S - Judicial Member

CATCHWORDS: Privacy –Health information – health privacy principle - collection

LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002
Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1998
Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Regulation 2008

CASES CITED: NX v Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions [2005] NSWADT
WL v Randwick City Council [2007] NSWADTAP 58

REPRESENTATION:
APPLICANT
In person
RESPONDENT
S-J Morris, solicitor

ORDERS: The Tribunal determines to take no further action on this matter.

1 In these reasons the name of the applicant has been anonymised so as to preserve the privacy of his personal affairs. The Applicant is referred to as SB.

Background

2 The parties are in general agreement in regard to the background and issues in regard to this matter.

3 The Roads and Traffic Authority (“the RTA”) is responsible for administering the driver licensing system established by the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1998 (“the RT(DL) Act”). As part of administering the driver licensing system, the RTA requires drivers who are 75 years or older to undergo a medical fitness examination each year. Shortly before a driver's 75th birthday, the RTA sends the driver a Medical Report Form, together with an accompanying letter and brochure. The Medical Report Form is to be completed by the driver's general practitioner or appropriate specialist and returned to the RTA.

4 The applicant was sent a Medical Report Form consistently with the RTA's practices and he returned it to the RTA in October 2009.

5 In August 2009, the applicant complained to the RTA that the requirement to return the Medical Report Form to the RTA was a breach of the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (“the HRIPA”) because:

"Invasion of privacy, access of personal medical records confidential to my physician and unnecessary for my fitness to drive by the RTA; Potential disclosure to unknown persons."

6 The RTA conducted an internal review of the applicant's complaint and concluded that it had not breached the HRIPA.

7 The applicant filed an application with this Tribunal seeking a review of the RTA's decision. In that application, he complained that the RTA's conduct was a breach of HPPs 1(b), 2(a) and 2(b). He has asked the Tribunal to make the following orders:

8 Section 20 of the RT(DL) Act, provides:

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading SB v Roads and Traffic Authority

Details

AGLC: SB v Roads and Traffic Authority [2010] NSWADT 255
Case: [2010] NSWADT 255
Decision Date: 27 October 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of SB v Roads and Traffic Authority, the applicant sought a review of a decision made by the Roads and Traffic Authority, which involved the collection and handling of the applicant's health information. The Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) was invoked, with the applicant arguing that the Authority had breached the health privacy principle by improperly collecting and using their health information. The matter was brought before the Information and Privacy Commission of New South Wales, which held jurisdiction over privacy complaints under the Act.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the Authority had violated the health privacy principle by collecting the applicant's health information without a proper basis. The Commission had to determine whether the collection and use of the health information was in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Additionally, the Commission had to assess whether the Authority had complied with the health privacy principle and whether there were any breaches of privacy in handling the applicant's health information.

The Commission found that the Authority had indeed collected the applicant's health information without a proper basis, which constituted a breach of the health privacy principle. However, the Commission also noted that the breach did not result in any significant harm to the applicant. Given the nature of the breach and the lack of substantial harm, the Commission determined that taking no further action on the matter was appropriate. The Commission did not find it necessary to impose any additional remedies or sanctions on the Authority.

The Tribunal ultimately decided to take no further action on this matter, recognising that while there was a breach of the health privacy principle, it did not cause significant harm to the applicant. The decision serves as a reminder to the Authority of their obligations under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) when handling health information.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal determines to take no further action on this matter.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	SB v Roads and Traffic Authority [2010] NSWADT 255
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT SB RESPONDENT Roads and Traffic Authority
FILE NUMBER:	093304
HEARING DATES:	16 June 2010
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	30 June 2010
DATE OF DECISION:	27 October 2010
BEFORE:	Montgomery S - Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS:	Privacy –Health information – health privacy principle - collection
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1998 Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Regulation 2008
CASES CITED:	NX v Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions [2005] NSWADT WL v Randwick City Council [2007] NSWADTAP 58
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT In person RESPONDENT S-J Morris, solicitor
ORDERS:	The Tribunal determines to take no further action on this matter.